Talk:500 home run club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list 500 home run club is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Baseball (Rated FL-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

There should be an asterisks next to Bonds name.[edit]

Its simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thprfssnl (talkcontribs) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No asterisk. Not unless Major League Baseball says so. Kingturtle (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really not maintaining "neutrality," WikiEditors?[edit]

Forget about the "asterisks"! We are being told that we cannot even add factual commentary about these illegal and criminal substance users when it is factual and when we are not claiming to want to use an asterisk (yet, at least--until MLB approves it)! If it is common knowledge, in the news, witnessed, in a police record or public record, corroborated, and so objectively provable to be true, then why is it claimed by WikiBots and Editors to be "not neutral"??? In other words:

Commenting on the existence of steroid and illegal substance use does not indicate that an editor is not being neutral. This information is factual and is being documented not only by facts uncovered and corroborated through the media and by witnesses--but it is also being documented by other organizations. As long as no pejorative language is used, it is certainly current, newsworthy, objective, factual, and neutral to point out that some members of major league baseball's "lists" have been found guilty of crimes regarding illegal drug use or substance use, are under investigation, or may someday be subject to further rulings or denotations. This is simply objective and factual and current--not biased and certainly not an "un-neutral" position or comment to include. And the above is more and more true month by month

Discussions of steroid use belong on articles about steroid use and on articles about players involved. Such a discussion does not belong on this article. Kingturtle (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion (and my point) are about the technical application of the "neutrality" rule--NOT about steroid use, per se. In said articles or Lists, edits were made using the "neutrality" rule and "MLB policy" as justification. The edits were not based upon the topicality of "steroid use"--a different point. So, the question remains: In this day in the information society where daily, weekly, and monthly new and increasingly substantial and factual information--as well as factually significant legal and moral and practical information--keeps coming out on steroids and illegal substances used by some (not all, but some) players in baseball (e.g., look at the Derek Jeter news conference and comments recently about the impact of all of this issue on MLB in general and on non-steroid users)--the question remains: is simply mentioning (not "politicizing, but simply factually mentioning) the critical issue of the controversy of steroid and illegal substance use in the context of these articles a demonstration of "not maintaining "neutrality" or going against "MLB policy"? I would say not necessarily. It must be monitored on a case by case edit and article. To make the claim that "it (asterisk discussion) is not MLB policy" while in fact the use of these very substances "is not MLB policy" either is to be simply facetious. To claim that simply mentioning what is now an increasingly consuming issue (steroid/illegal substance) in many quarters is, in fact, "not being neutral" is just not accurate. It is more a matter of degree and qualitative and quantitative analysis of the particular contribution and the particular article. This is true of many issues affecting sports. Steroid use is not like a "corked bat incident"--it is much more profound than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbfitz0529 (talkcontribs) 12:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, there are definitely proper places for such information - Mitchell Report (baseball), List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs, and the articles of the players involved. Player statistical records are not yet officially marked by Major League Baseball - and therefore articles about statistical achievements should not be involved in the steroids issue. Kingturtle (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sosa and drug use[edit]

I don't think that it was ever proven that Sammy Sosa took steroids or other drugs. Unless it was confirmed, I'm going to remove the asterisk next to his name in a bit.

Max Elstein 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he's been implicated at least....what I want to know is where is the asterisk by Mcguire's name???

There should be no asterisks by anyone's name. Asterisks have all been removed. Bjewiki 09:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed rankings[edit]

I removed the rankings since we also have the article Top 500 home run hitters of all time which is meant solely to be a ranking of the home run hitters. The 500 Home run club is more of a collection of players who have hit 500 home runs, and could be ordered in various other ways (date of entry into the club, alphabetical). It doesn't matter to me how we order it, but I think that since we have a separate article for ranking them, we shouldn't have numerical ranks here. siroχo


The last edit from Dale Arnet (8/30/07) led me to thinking ..... is it or is it not usual fto list tied players in order that they reached a particular mark, nad not alphabetically? I am bringing up a point that is ultimately not very important, but was curious for opinions. For example, I would list Williams ahead of McCovey because Ted Williams got there first.TeganX7 06:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Age at 500[edit]

I think a great additional column to the table would be the player's age (years, months, days) at the time he joined the 500 club. I added the column to the table, but I am not aware of any sources for the ages. -Greg

All the needed information is there. The player's birthdate is known, and the date of 500 is known. What would be useful is a template that calculates the difference between two dates. I didn't see any here: Category:Date_mathematics_templates. Bjewiki 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started the task manually...kind of a pain...I'll try to finish tonight. - Greg
Here's a good calculator to make it easier [1] Bjewiki 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually used http://www.export911.com/convert/lapTlME.htm, which is slightly better in that it gives years, weeks, days. I still needed to convert weeks to months though, another pain. -Greg 3/22/07

As a related note does anyone have any idea where information exists in terms at what career at-bat a player reached 500 home runs. I am grateful for the age data, but would also like to see the "at-bat" data. I think that data is important for comparing players like Hank Aaron and Willie Mays who lost part of their careers to military service or the lack of integration at the time (for example). TeganX7 5 August 2007

I agree. At bats information would be a very nice addition. I was just comparing that information myself yesterday and it would be very good to add to these articles.--otduff t/c 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Table formatting error[edit]

Could someone more experienced with Wikipedia tables take a look at the formatting of the "Next 5 Closest" table? It appears squished to the right of the main table. Carbonite | Talk 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Carbonite, sorry about that. I never did see what the problem was with my table (looking back on the previous edits) until now, as I am on a different computer (at my school). The table looked just as the actual Club table on my computer. I don't know what was wrong but in hindsight, I supposed it wasn't necessary. Thanks for the help. FPAtl 00:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Asterisks[edit]

why are they there? WillC 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone put them in on May 29th to indicate "players implicated in steroid scandal". However, somewhere along the way, the description of the asterik got lost (used to be below the active player key). Additionally, the asterik next to Bonds' number seems to have been lost too, likely when his total was updated. Bjewiki 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


OK ..... I'm no fan of Mr. Bonds, nor am I an apologist for the steroids era. I am a fan of Frank Thomas, and believe he was clean getting to 500 homers. BUT ..... this whole putting asterisks by people's names is a tad ludicrous. If this is true, maybe we need to consider putting special marks for players who played in longer seasons, didn't play against African-Americans, never had to play on the west coast, and never played in the pitching favored late 60s through the 80s. Let the courts and baeball administrators decide how to handle this. I thought the point of articles and lists on this site was to provide factual information, not judgements. TeganX7 5 August 2007


This is not a judgement. It is to indicate a player's involvement in the scandal, so that anyone who sees the list can do their own research on the subject (by the way, there is a Wikipedia article on it, I linked to it). Maybe we should put special marks for all those other things, but the fact that we haven't done so does not mean that we should remove this one. It's going back on there, if you want to remove it discuss here first before removing it. Bovester 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for having an asterisk in this article whatsoever. Like TeganX7 I'm definitely no fan of Barry Bonds, but this is not the place to air something which is in violation of WP:POV. Whether or not an individual is linked to a steroid scandal does not impact the fact that they have hit 500 home runs or more during the course of their career. I don't believe Bonds has reached this level "naturally," so to speak, but he's never tested positive and he's never been suspended or chastized by Major League Baseball for steroids, and although the popular opinion is to hold his home run record with high suspicion, no asterisk or any other qualifier has ever been placed on him. Therefore, since the scandal and the 500 home run club have no intrinsic connection, there's no justification in any way, shape, or form for hanging the scarlet letter here. - RPIRED 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bovestar, I am sorry for coming across more strongly than I should have, and I direct none of this at you. You're right. I should have discussed first and deleated later.

I see two points of concern: 1. When I came across this, Rafael Palmeiro, the only person on this list to actually test positive beyond a doubt, had no asterik. My interpretation was that this came across more as "anti-Bonds" in nature than "steroids/performance enhancement" in nature. This is why I took it down when I did.

2. I'm not sure that adding an asterik necessarily violates a POV rule in the strictest sense (no question that he's involved), but then we need to go through over time and find and mark every player involved across the board, otherwise I think it becomes interpretable as a POV issue, which I think we all agree we want to avoid. Further, it would need to be made very clear that this (at least for now) is an allegation.

3. Besdies, if we had to account for every possible issue that affected the number, it would be a lot of symbols:

  • involved in steroid/HGH scandal of the 1990s-2000s

† allegation of amphetamine use

    • numbers artificially lowered due to military service

†† numbers possibly inflated because this player never played against African-American players

  • † numbers possible lowered because their career begane before integration

etc.

I don't want to come across as a know it all by any means .... I just think that this particular topic can be handeled with greater clarity and completeness in individual player articles. TeganX7 06:19 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some way of indicating which of these numbers were actual human accomplishments, and which numbers were put up by steroid-fueled monsters.

(New comment...the one above wasn't signed) I think that the asterisks are completely ludicrous, for the most part. If you want to put one by Palmiero, the only proven cheater, then do so. But I really don't see the point of the marking every player who has played the bulk of their careers in the 1990s and 2000s. No one has accused Frank Thomas, Alex Rodriguez or Manny Ramirez of using steroids, for example. Why do they get asterisks? I'm sure that some would say that anyone who played in a park like Fenway or Yankee Stadium that has a short-porch should also be considered to have inflated numbers. And what's to say that someone like Eddie Murray didn't use steroids later in his career? Or that Mike Schmidt didn't use amphetamines in the 1970s and 1980s? Marking players for what is only speculation, no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence seems, dilutes the purpose of the asterisk, which is to mark the known cheaters. Kat0211 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Reference links don't belong. They're prejudicial in nature. While some of the players with the notes probably used steroids (and Palmero definately did), to label all players with the link because they played in the 90s-00s is borderline defamation (especially the way the links have been labeled previously). No one has ever accused Griffey or Rodriguez, the evidence is just not there. And yet they were labeled as "likely steroid abusers" in a recent edit! While the notes been softened since, that they're still labeled smacks of guilt-by-association, just because they happened to play at the same time as a bunch of likely cheaters. We should, nay must, remove it just so those not involved with anything aren't defamed needlessly. If some are later firmly proven as users, we can label them at that time. But there's no good reason to drag the names of all through the mud just because of when they played. oknazevad 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mt. Crushmore[edit]

Does anyone else think the Mt. Crushmore line should be removed, or atleast modified? I've never heard anyone "commonly" call it that, and googling the term returns very few results #3 of which is this page. The other references seemed to be from MLB.com and SF Giants website when Bonds hit his 600th. My point is, I don't think this is a common term at all, or even worth mentioning. Anyone else agree/disagree? Bjewiki 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

600 HR Club[edit]

Did anyone notice there's now a page for the 600 home run club? Although, it appears that it's solely being maintained by Soxrock. The 600 HR page seems completely redundant to me. Plus, what's the stop someone from creating a 650 HR club page? or a 700 HR club? etc. I personally think it should just be deleted, what does anyone else think? Bjewiki 12:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Page becoming cluttered/eyesore...[edit]

I think this page is becoming a little cluttered. Recent additions have included columns for opposing pitchers, teams hit against, box score of game, not to mention the flag icons for the players, and the opposing pitchers. All of this is making the page a little bit of an eyesore (atleast to me). Personally, I feel that the opposing team, and flags should be removed. The flags don't really add anything, and the opposing team can easily be determined from looking at the boxscore. Additionally, does the box score really need it's own column??? Maybe just put it as a link after the date of the 500th HR. Bjewiki 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this opinion and the suggested means of action.-MBK004 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the flag icons & the opposing pitcher. I left the boxscore where it is for now, because it didn't really look right anywhere else. Also, i made the tabel sortable, which isn't really useful for every column, but is for #, HR, Age & Seasons. Bjewiki 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I would favor removing the rank (which should be obvious), and the years of service (available on each player's page). I would like to see the opposing pitcher kept because not every player's page necessarily has that info.TeganX7 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer a little more detail on the actual 500th HR in each instance, so combining existing columns would be useful. Years active could follow each name, and the opposing pitcher's team could also follow their name, for example. The page isn't very long as is. MisfitToys 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

stadiums[edit]

Major League Baseball home run milestones was recently turned into a redirect to this article. The justification was that all the data at Major League Baseball home run milestones was already here. Missing here is the ballpark names. Kingturtle (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oldest/youngest[edit]

I added (diff) notations of the youngest and oldest players at the time of their 500th; this was reverted with a notation "not needed." Not wishing to get into an edit/revert war, I thought I'd bring the issue here. Please comment on whether A-Rod and The Splendid Splinter should be identified with regard to their extreme ages.Matchups 03:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bonds is an active player[edit]

He hasn't retired, even though he hasn't played yet in 2008. He's active, so his name should be in bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.212.65 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Asteroidisks[edit]

Who doesn't know what they mean? Well, non-Americans reading this article.

If you use an asterisk, it has to be linked to an explanation of its meaning. Please add a note of explanation, accompanied by a secondary source, or remove the asterisk, otherwise its OR, or your feelings about Bonds, neither of which is encyclopedia-worthy.

I'm going to remove it if it's not sourced soon enough. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check the edit history. Appears it was vandalism. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Happy138 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Columns for Pitcher Who Pitched the Last HR Hit by the Person[edit]

Why don't we add in a column for the pitcher that gave up the last HR to all retired players along with the date of the last HR? Having a column for the 1st HR for these people would be nice to see too. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the change in format?[edit]

I think the asterisk debate is irrelevant, but a more important point is that the old format of this page was better (before July 16, 2010). It encompassed other milestones like 600 and 700, which are just as important if not more important, and included the ages of each batter as he passed the milestone, which is also a very important figure. Opposing pitcher data has also been removed, and although the editing user said it was "unsourced," it could easily be gleaned from the box scores that were linked for nearly every milestone HR on the list. So, if anything, it was just improperly sourced.

The only thing that has been added is the active years for each player. I think this is more relevant than the "teams played for" column on the old page, so a slight improvement there, but it does not make up for all the information that was lost, as "years played in MLB" can be gleaned quickly from visiting an individual player's page.

I think this page should be returned to its old format and updated from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.89.155 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The old format left enormous blank columns for the majority of the members, was broadly unsourced in different ways (I'd gladly re-add the pitcher who surrendered the 500th column if you can source the older guys), and this isn't a list about 600 or 700 HRs so those additional columns that ruined the formatting were outside the realm of the list anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Where should the list of members linked to PEDs go?[edit]

I noticed that my addition of the recent players linked to PED usage—complete with reliable references—was deleted. My only question is: Where should this go, if not here? Since the article already states that several players were linked to PEDs, why shouldn't the specific players be listed if they've admitted to use or been linked to use by reliable sources? — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Because that's not the topic of the article, and by it's very nature will be incomplete as steroids have been used since the 60s and 70s but there's basically no investigation of pre-Canseco users. It's selective content outside the realm of the article, it should go nowhere. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't like to revisit this so long after the original discussion, but I do have a comment. After further thought, I decided you were both right and wrong. You were right about it not belonging in this particular list. However, I strongly disagree that the information "should go nowhere". I believe it's too important a part of baseball history to be swept under the rug, so to speak, and I believe there HAS to be at least one article, if not more, where that specific information would be useful.. — Dale Arnett (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't mean nowhere on Wikipedia, I meant nowhere in this article. I completely agree that a List of MLB players linked to PEDs or something would have grounds to exist ON THE PROJECT, I just meant not here. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Choice of the week at The Signpost[edit]

Dear editors, The Signpost's guest judge this week chose this article as the best promotion to featured list status. Congratulations! Tony (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Thome's current team[edit]

Jim Thome's current team is the Minnesota Twins, should this be changed from Chicago White Sox? 209.150.195.106 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think his current team should be listed? It's detailed information of his 500th HR... and the team he hit it with... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reversions of PED-related additions by Jpeterson[edit]

Just to make clear, these edits have been reverted by myself (and then independently today by Happy) for 2 major reasons: (1) They are unsourced, incomplete, and inaccurate and (2) They are largely outside the scope of the article here. On the first point the "tests" are unsourced and largely untrue. There is no public, published, verified source that shows a positive test by Bonds, Sosa, Sheffield, or McGwire (though Sheff and McGwire at least admitted their use, still doesn't fit the "tested positive" note as added). Additionally, unless further info comes out about this 2nd test that forced his retirement, Manny also never tested positive for a PED, he was suspended for a positive test of a PED masking agent. Additionally the data is incomplete, and therefore rather bias inducing. If you aren't going to limit it explicitly to players caught red handed, how can you possibly be accurate? Aaron's own teammate Tom House used steroids and said they were rampant already at that time. How do you know what Aaron, Mays, Mathews, Banks, Killebrew, et al did? As I noted in an email exchange (Jpeterson contacted me through Wiki's email function), Willie Mays and Mike Schmidt took amphetamines, an illegal performance enhancing substance, why weren't they tagged in his (repeated) edits? Then, and this is more fundamental in my opinion, this information has no real place here. The general subject of PEDs is mentioned in the lead because it does garner media attention. But hijacking this list (using bright, flashy colors including one that overrides an existing colored field for active players) to turn it into another Mitchell Report/Performance enhancing drugs in baseball clone destroys it's purpose. Leave the witch hunting to the articles about the witch hunt. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that I second this, Happy beat me to the revert on this earlier today. It was one of those times where you click revert only to see another editor beat you to it. PED issues have no place on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Handedness[edit]

What do others think about including the handedness of the players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.71.182 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing.Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathews 511/512[edit]

Wondering about the inconsistency in Ed Mathews’ home run total. In 1959 Mathews’ Milwaukee Braves lost the NL pennant to the LA Dodgers in a postseason playoff. Mathews had finished the regular season tied with Ernie Banks for the league home run lead with 45 each, but Mathews hit another in the playoff and was credited with the home run title with 46. I was 12 years old at the time and I remember thinking that this was unfair, the extra playoff games shouldn’t count as part of the regular season. Could this be the reason for the discrepancy in Mathews’ career total (511 vs. 512)? If so, this could be explained in the footnote at the bottom of the table. Can someone verify whether this is in fact the explanation of the discrepancy? Dodiad (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Teams[edit]

The addition of every team a player has played for is unnecessary. It clutters the page and makes the table far less readable. Further, it's not relevant to this page where else a player has played, and anyone interested in learning that information can simply navigate to the player's biography. This page is for the 500 HR club alone, and not the biographical article for each member. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)